alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18254]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on June 16, 1998, a proposed Consent 
Decree (``decree'') in United States of America v. Bell Atlantic--
Virginia, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:98 CV 372 was lodged with 
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    In this action, the United States sought recovery of costs incurred 
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in response to the 
release and threat of release of hazardous substances at the C&R 
Battery site in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The decree requires 
seventeen parties who arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances 
at the C&R Battery site to reimburse the United States a total of 
$591,285.82.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the decree. 
Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States v. Bell 
Atlantic--Virginia, Inc., et al., D.J. Ref. #90-11-2-692/1.
    The decree may be examined at the Offices of the United States 
Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, 600 East Main Street, 
Suite 600, Richmond, Virginia 23219, at U.S. EPA Region 3, 841 Chestnut 
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107 and the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G 
Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of 
the decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In 
requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $28.25 (25 
cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree 
Library. In requesting a copy exclusive of exhibits and defendants' 
signatures, please enclose a check in the amount of $4.50 (25 cents per 
page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-18254 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18023]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[Program Announcement 98085]


Young People in Alternative Education Settings: Preventing HIV 
and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases Notice of Availability of 
Fiscal Year 1998 Funds; Amendment

    A notice announcing the availability of fiscal year (FY) 1998 funds 
for cooperative agreements for the prevention of human immunodeficiency 
virus (HIV), and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among young 
people in alternative educational settings was published in the Federal 
Register on June 24, 1998, [Vol. 63 FR Number 121]. The notice is 
amended as follows:
    On page 34432, third column, under ``Application Submission and 
Deadline'', the second paragraph should read: ``An original and two 
copies of the application PHS Form 5161-1 (Revised 5/96, OMB Number 
0937-0189) must be submitted to Sharron P. Orum, Grants Management 
Officer, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Room 300, Mail Stop 
E-18, 255 East Paces Ferry Road, NE., Atlanta, GA 30305, on or before 
August 15, 1998.''
    All other information and requirements of the notice remain the 
same.

    Dated: July 01, 1998.
John L. Williams,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 98-18023 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### *State, Respondent, v. Thrower, Petitioner,*

No. 90591-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 69950-4-1, June 30, 2014, 182 Wn. App. 1006. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
No. 10-7573.

#### Jeffrey K. Gilbert, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

562 U.S. 1187, 131 S. Ct. 1014,

178 L. Ed. 2d 842,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 811.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 27, 2019

p1120

Order 

Clerk

November 27, 2019

157134

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157134

COA: 335193

Genesee CC: 11-029956-FC

AARON ANTWAUN ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

By order of October 2, 2018, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 

2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in 

People v Beck (Docket No. 152934) and People v Dixon-Bey (Docket No. 156746). On 

order of the Court, Beck having been decided on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), and 

leave to appeal having been denied in Dixon-Bey on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), 

the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we REMAND 

this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Beck. In addition, the 

Court of Appeals shall analyze: (1) whether defendant’s argument pertaining to the 

consecutive nature of his sentences is outside the scope of the remand for “resentencing”; 

and (2) if not, whether the trial court articulated an appropriate basis for imposing 

consecutive sentences. See People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649 (2016). In all other 

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
STATEMENT  OF OPERATIONS  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND THE
BALANCE  SHEET FOR THE PERIOD THEN ENDED,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANICAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                          SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                9,919,704
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         375,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (60,000)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      10,487,075
<PP&E>                                                3,058,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (289,510)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        13,328,696
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    798,875
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              435
<OTHER-SE>                                            12,475,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          13,328,696
<SALES>                                               477,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      807,823
<CGS>                                                 176,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         4,345,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    2,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (3,537,897)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (3,537,897)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (3,537,897)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.87)




</TABLE>
# C_2015016EN.01001301.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/13

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia — Italy) — Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani v Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

(Case C-246/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - National legislation providing, with retroactive effect, for a reduction in pension entitlements - Purely internal situation - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2015/C 016/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti, Sezione Giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vittoria De Bellis, Diana Perrone, Cesaria Antonia Villani

Defendant: Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza per i Dipendenti dell’Amministrazione Pubblica (INPDAP)

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Puglia (Italy), by decision of 28 April 2014 (Case C-246/14).

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.

---
B-MP0523E (1/23) ©2023 Magellan Health, Inc.

Managing Life’s Micro-Stressors

The accumulation of small, stressful frustrations throughout 

the day—sometimes referred to as “micro-stressors”—often 

occurs without our being aware of them. However, the impact 

of processing them can linger for hours or days. 

Register for this live webinar on Wednesday, May 10 at 1:00 pm CT to:

• Learn the definition of micro-stressors.

• Identify common sources and causes.

• Acquire techniques for managing micro-stressors.

*All live webinars are recorded and posted on your member website.

Visit MagellanAscend.com or call your Employee

Assistance Program at 1-866-580-9046 (TTY 711) for

helpful resources.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua Conklin, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 602]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered March 11, 2016, convicting him of escape in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence upon his adjudication as a second felony offender.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the defendant’s adjudication as a second felony offender and the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for a new second felony offender hearing and for resentencing thereafter.

At the sentencing proceeding, the defendant admitted that he had a prior felony conviction in 2008 of burglary in the second degree. However, he indicated that he was challenging his 2008 felony conviction on constitutional grounds. Under these circumstances, as the People correctly concede, the County Court was obligated to conduct further inquiry to ascertain the nature of the defendant’s constitutional challenges, and to conduct a hearing thereon *(see*CPL 400.21; *People v Pierre,*30 AD3d 897 [2006]; *People v Katz,*214 AD2d *651586 [1995]; *People v Chestnut,*188 AD2d 480 [1992]; *People v Davis,*144 AD2d 688 [1988]).

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese, Bar-ros and Christopher, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1875]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-153-009]


Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.; Notice of FERC Tariff 
Filing

January 21, 1998.
    Take notice that on January 15, 1998, Granite State Gas 
Transmission, Inc. (Granite State) tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 
289, with an effective date of January 15, 1998.
    According to Granite State, the purpose of the foregoing tariff 
sheet is to incorporate GISB Standard 4.3.6 by reference in the tariff, 
thus implementing Granite State Internet accessible web page.
    Granite State further states that copies of its filing are being 
served by first-class mail on its firm and interruptible shippers and 
on the regulatory commissions of the states of Maine, Massachusetts and 
New Hampshire.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1875 Filed 1-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2016343EN.01000501.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer

(Case C-597/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph - Figurative mark - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark - Proof of the existence, validity and extent of the protection of the earlier trade mark - Consideration by the Board of Appeal of evidence submitted out of time - Rejection of the opposition by the Board of Appeal))

(2016/C 343/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Xavier Grau Ferrer, Juan Cándido Rubio Ferrer, Alberto Rubio Ferrer

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.

1

---
No. D-2484.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of William A. Schainker.

562 U.S. 1197, 131 S. Ct. 1066,

178 L. Ed. 2d 880,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1036.

January 24, 2011.

Disbarment entered.

Former order, 561 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 42, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1131, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5594.
No. 10-585.

#### Ariadna Puerto, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1092, 131 S. Ct. 805,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9562.

178 L. Ed. 2d 532,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 692.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36387-36388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17777]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-70, RM-9276]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Clinton and Okarche, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Tyler 
Broadcasting Corporation seeking the substitution of Channel 294C2 for 
Channel 294C1 at Clinton, OK, the reallotment of Channel 294C2 from 
Clinton to Okarche, OK, as the community's first local aural service, 
and the modification of Station KCLI-FM's license to specify Okarche as 
its

[[Page 36388]]

community of license. Channel 294C2 can be allotted to Okarche in 
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation 
requirements with a site restriction of 2.8 kilometers (1.7 miles) 
east, at coordinates 35-43-08 North Latitude; 98-00-09 West Longitude, 
to accommodate petitioner's desired transmitter site.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 24, 1998, and reply 
comments on or before, September 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Gary S. 
Smithwick, Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C., 1990 M Street, NW, Suite 510, 
Washington, D.C. 20036 (Counsel to petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 98-70, adopted May 1, 
1998, and released May 22, 1998. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-17777 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# C_2013123EN.01002301.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/23

---

Action brought on 13 March 2013 — Jinko Solar and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T-142/13)

2013/C 123/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Jinko Solar Co. Ltd (Shangrao, China); Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co. Ltd (Haining City, China); Jiangxi Jinko Photovoltaic Materials Co. Ltd (Shangrao); Jinko Solar Import and Export Co. Ltd (Shangrao, China); and Zhejiang Jinko Trading Co. Ltd (Haining City) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission, Council of the European Union

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1), insofar as it was applied to the applicants, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344, p. 1), insofar as it was applied to the applicants,

| — | Annul the Commission's Decision of 3 January 2013 by which it refused to consider the applicants' market economy treatment claims; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's Decision of 3 January 2013 by which it refused to consider the applicants' market economy treatment claims; and

| — | Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law alleging that Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision stating that the Commission would not consider the applicants' market economy treatment claims, frustrate the legitimate expectations of the applicants and are applied retroactively to the detriment of the applicants without valid justifications. As a result, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants by the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision, manifestly violate the basic principles of legal certainty and good faith.

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24I0151. STERLING PLANET, INC. v. GRP HOLDCO, LLC et al.

On February 28, 2024, the Georgia State-wide Business Court enteredan order

granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff GRP Holdco, LLC on defendant

Sterling Planet, Inc.’s promissory estoppel claim, and granted partial summary

judgment to GRP on Sterling’s business relations claim. Sterling filed an application

for discretionary appeal and a direct appeal, which has been docketed as Case No.

A24A1281.

“An order granting summary judgment on any issue or as to any party shall be

subject to review by appeal.” OCGA § 9-11-56 (h). Moreover, all rulings within that

order and any other non-final rulings entered in the case may also be raised as part of

such a direct appeal. See OCGA§ 5-6-34 (d).In light of Sterling’s direct appeal of the

trial court’s order, this application is superfluous. Accordingly, this application is

hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

April 16, 2024

04/16/2024